• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

NATO-RUSSIA

• According to AP, President Putin Monday called the new Russia-NATO Council, to be inaugurated at a key summit in Rome Tuesday, "Russia’s latest contribution to international security." In remarks shown on Russian television stations, Putin reportedly said the agreement he is to sign at an Italian air force base with the 19 NATO leaders "is a very important document that will change the quality of relations between Russia and NATO." It will be an extra contribution of Russia to international security, he continued. The Financial Times reports meanwhile that Russia and NATO are set to unveil proposals, which, if implemented, could bring a radical shake-up of Moscow’s defense establishment. According to the article, the proposals are outlined in the confidential declaration of the new NATO-Russia Council (NRC) to be signed by the Alliance’s leaders and President Putin. The declaration reportedly sets out a timetable for joint projects and suggests ways NATO could help Russia restructure its Defense Ministry, train military personnel and revamp military expenditures. It also details how both sides will "explore the possibilities" of establishing an integrated NATO-Russia training center and promote joint operations between the two military forces.

Ahead of the Rome summit, and with media showing increased interest in NATO’s future, four European dailies, The Independent, Le Figaro, De Standaard and Die Welt, carry interviews with NATO Secretary General Robertson in which he views NATO’s ties with Russia and stresses NATO’s continued importance.

Arguing that if NATO-Russia cooperation marks a dramatic turning point for Moscow, it is probably also make or break for NATO, The Independent writes that whether NATO will remain a mighty defense alliance or evolve into a broader international talking shop is now an open debate. "The Alliance has unique military planning capabilities (which the EU wants to use) and unparalleled expertise in multinational operations. But even NATO Secretary General Robertson concedes that NATO is in danger of being squeezed out of meaningful existence if America selects its allies a la carte to fight big campaigns and the EU takes over peacekeeping operations," adds the newspaper, quoting Lord Robertson saying: "It is critically important that we avoid that." Stressing that Lord Robertson’s answer is that NATO must become a more flexible military body and that "–whatever the Pentagon hawks may think—even America cannot do without allies," the article adds: "Lord Robertson argues: ‘The U.S. might be mighty in the military sense but it cannot even fight the smallest war alone. It needed for Afghanistan to have Pakistan; it needed the freedom to move around the airways of Europe, including Russia; it needed Uzbekistan and the Central Asian republics for basing rights there. Even the superpowers need allies…. There will be times when NATO is the appropriate vehicle and sometimes when a wider coalition is going to be necessary but none of this works without NATO being in existence and producing inter-operability.’" Time will tell whether that continues to be the case but, for the meantime, Lord Robertson has a riposte to those who say the organization has already lost the plot, adds the article, further quoting him saying: "If NATO is irrelevant why do 10 countries queue up to join? NATO matters and the interest by President Putin and senior Russians in having a NATO-Russia Council is a vivid illustration of its continued importance."

De Standaard emphasizes Lord Robertson’s remark that at the NATO-Russia summit, even the seating plan will be "revolutionary" with Russia placed in alphabetical order between Portugal and Spain. A similar observation is made by Le Figaro.

Die Welt highlights a warning by Lord Robertson that NATO must modernize or be marginalized. If the technological gap between European members and the United States continues to grow then there will also be a credibility gap, the newspaper quotes Lord Robertson saying.

NATO-ARMAMENT AGENCIES

• Under the title, "Court of auditors: NATO wasting billons," Die Welt, May 25, claimed that the Federal Court of Auditors has found out that NATO armament agencies were accumulating billions of Euros. According to the article, in a report on the NATO armament organization NAMSA, which was allegedly obtained by the newspaper, the auditors stressed that the NATO agencies do not require permanent reserves of several hundred million Euros and suggested that by using these extra-budgetary reserves, Germany’s budget could be enhanced by millions. The auditors reportedly complained about not having received a complete overview of the agencies’ financial situation. They said an exact determination and a deduction of the interest incomes could have enabled lower German payments. The newspaper further reported that having began the search, the auditors found evidence elsewhere: "Other NATO agencies hold bank accounts of several hundred million Euros, which went beyond the normal financial obligations and thus could be reduced," the auditors reportedly said, citing the NATO Airborne Early Warning Program Management Agency (NAPMA) as an example. According to the newspaper, the Court of Auditors does not exclude the existence of further billions. The auditors are not sure whether the accumulated money is used correctly. They said they were hoping that aspects such as an optimal yield and secure financial investments were ensured by internal monitoring. "NATO bunkers billions. NATO is obviously wasting billions, coming from German payments, too," says a related article in Hamburger Abendblatt. Die Welt reported that NATO-operated armament agencies had accumulated billions, among others coming from transfers taken from the German defense budget, according to a report by the Federal Court of Auditors, says the daily. It adds that a Defense Ministry spokeswoman confirmed the existence of the report, but did not want to give any details. She reportedly said the Defense Committee of the Bundestag would discuss the report on June 5. "NATO agencies out of control," charged Tz on line, May 25 adding: "NATO organizations handle the money of their member states in an unreliable manner. They form high reserves they do not need in the first place, lack the required accounting and cannot give precise information…. This was made clear in a report edited by the Federal Court of Auditors." Citing a report by Germany’s audit office, Die Welt said hundreds of millions of Euros in German payments to the NATO Maintenance and Supply Agency (NAMSA) are being kept unduly, writes the French news agency AFP, adding: "’Permanent reserves of several hundreds of millions of Euros are not necessary,’ the paper said, arguing that the funds if repaid would give a boost to Germany’s strained federal budget."

OTHER NEWS

• According to the International Herald Tribune, May 25, the uniformed leaders of the U.S. military believe they have persuaded the Pentagon’s civilian leadership to put off an invasion of Iraq until next year at the earliest and perhaps not to do it at all. Quoting senior Pentagon officials, the newspaper says the Joint Chiefs of Staff have waged a determined behind-the-scenes campaign to persuade the Bush administration to reconsider an aggressive posture toward Iraq in which war was regarded as all but inevitable. This reportedly included a secret briefing at the White House earlier this month for President Bush with Gen. Tommy Franks, head of the U.S. Central Command. According to the newspaper, Gen. Franks told President Bush that invading Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein would require at least 200,000 troops, far more than some other military experts have calculated. The article quotes officials saying this was in line with views of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, who have repeatedly emphasized the lengthy buildup that would be required, concerns about Saddam’s possible use of biological and chemical weapons, and the possible casualties.

 FINAL ITEM